In my humble opinion sacredness is, for certain, a characteristic of religion but the meaning of religion seems not to be sacredness itself but about what is sacred. Religions have gods and these gods, what they command, etc. are sacred.

Is this a valid understanding of religion? — h060tu

It is one way of looking at it.

I’m assuming you’ve read Eliade’s ‘The Sacred and The Profane’? The most telling concept held within that small work for me is ‘hierophant’.

For the hell of it I may as well splash my notes here (they are rough notes!):

The introduction points out the “ganz andere” (wholly other) that is literally indescribable. We are forced to resort to mere analogies - here I would say all words and phraseologies are actually just “analogies” of a special flavour, and that through the written word we come to make words “sacrosanct” and withdraw from experience by making forts preservable and physical form through writing.
1
Hierophany*- as act of manifestation of the sacred. Etymologically the “hierophant” Is the conduit between the mundane and the sacred (The profane the sacred). For instance The shaman acts as a spirit guide “psychopomp” - essentially as the hierophant/guardian; someone who helps articulate the “ganz andere”.

*For a better understanding of “hierophant” think of the production team for a movie and the audience - the “hierophany” being the movie bridging between the two and making the two one. The production of a movie never to be seen, or of a audience gathered to view nothing is meaningless - there is no movie production without the concept of an audience just as there is no audience without the concept of gathering to share a common experience.

The “sacred world” comes prior to the “profane world”. In the charting and mapping of the environment an understanding of it - a meaning content - is manifested. The “meaning” is more “real” than the physicality, and through meaning and correspondence the “physical” underlying ontological existence becomes known by withdrawal from the “cosmologically sacred” (the meaning). As reality holds firm to our understanding, as meaning becomes “factual” so the “sacred” is desecrated and both the “sacred” and “profane” explode into distinct types of being (within this is the ‘crypto-religious’ behavior of profane man - connecting to the term “nostalgia”.)

Orientation is the same as construction. In such manners are “things” held to be, and in such a manner things possess meaning - the hunting site, the butchery of the animal, the home (or sleeping spot) - physically ground memory. It is through memory all experience “announces” itself; memory is something of the “mediator”, the “hierophant” of being (neither here in the now, embedded in the past nor future possibles.) In fact through refinement of memory grows an ever broadening and infinite scope for “knowledge of”; often through analogy. Such “orientation” or “construct”, of or about the cosmological condition, is edified with a group by a sacred object - and if broken then the community too breaks unable to distinguish the object from the cosmological abstraction of “reality” simply because the hierophant means all avenues and without it there is merely naught but nihilism (no orientation; therefore no meaning or purpose.) The death of the shaman, or “religious” figure, can have a similar effect (kings and queens, heroes and heroines, etc.,.)

The building/altar constructed upon a location of a successful hunt or fortunate circumstance - birth, victory, etc.,. Here, or at least in the homestead, man creates a representation of the cosmos. Within their own confines the ability to manage and perfect their habits/habitat takes on a new and lasting effect due to the control established within the confined space (a kind of “godhood” is taken on). The value of such abodes are brought about by entwining use to memory through a positive funnel - the “good narrative”, of hunt or other success, rounds a positive cosmological representation with which man commands his immediate position and solidified a point of orientation. The point of origin explodes into existence upon the physical world as an actual grounded place, thus giving the impression of “absolute” and bringing about the manifestation of limitations and a bounded existence: man is both imprisoned and free to explore. The world (weltanschauung) is transformed from more approximate bounds into acts of precision brought out by making finite “within” the infinite.

Durkheim's characterizations of the sacred and the profane are couched in the context of early or primitive levels of social development. In a more general sense, the sacred is what serves to unite the empirical-cultural, socio-normative, personal spheres. So perhaps we no longer experience the sacred, per se, in our modern world. It is precisely this disenchantment (Habermas' word) with the sacred that contributes to Durkheim's malaise known as anomie.

The idea of religion in my mind is closer to the Durkheimian view that religion centers around the idea of sacredness, which literally means "something set apart for a particular purpose."

In that sense, even atheists are religious, in that, atheists do hold certain things as "sacred" things set apart from the average mundane and what's called profane by scholars of religion like Rudolf Otto, Carl Jung and Mircea Eliade. — h060tu

Treating something as sacred is to establish value. You can value things without being religious. The mark of religion is a definable institution such as a church and people associating with each other.

Treating something as sacred is to establish value. You can value things without being religious. The mark of religion is a definable institution such as a church and people associating with each other. — jacksonsprat22

Durkheim wouldn't agree. And on the second point, neither would I. Buddhism isn't a defined institution. Neither is Christianity really. Only a couple of Churches are actually institutions, the rest of them are all over the place.

But anyway.

Buddhism isn't a defined institution. Neither is Christianity really. Only a couple of Churches are actually institutions, the rest of them are all over the place. — h060tu

Missing your point. A church, by definition, is an institution.

Missing your point. A church, by definition, is an institution. — jacksonsprat22

Then you must have a loose definition of institution. I guess a small family would constitute an institution in your view. How far are you willing to go with this? Is a single individual an institution? A particle?

A building. That simple.

A building. That simple. — jacksonsprat22

So a house is an institution?

ok

in·sti·tu·tion
/ˌinstəˈt(y)o͞oSH(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
a society or organization founded for a religious, educational, social, or similar purpose.
"a certificate from a professional institution"

https://www.google.com/search?q=institution&rlz=1C1OKWM_enUS777US777&oq=institution&aqs=chrome..69i57.3121j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Treating something as sacred is to establish value. You can value things without being religious. The mark of religion is a definable institution such as a church and people associating with each other.
— jacksonsprat22

Durkheim wouldn't agree. — h060tu

Would he not?

"the sacred principle is nothing but society hypostasized....it should be possible to interpret ritual life in secular and social terms" (Oxford World Classic edition, page 257).

Which is exactly what I said in my post and to the point re. it being a general type of value, per @jacksonsprat22 s point.

Unfortunately, when you read something based on a presupposition (this is about religion) you will tend not to see other interpretations because of confirmation bias. viz., this is a text about socialized communication and socialized action.

The idea of religion in my mind is closer to the Durkheimian view that religion centers around the idea of sacredness, which literally means "something set apart for a particular purpose." — h060tu

I’m not sure how you get that sacredness “literally” means that. That, of course, is not what it means, much less literally means. I assume that’s one sense of it that you got from a dictionary.

The Durkheimian Wikipedia page defines sacred as:

the ideas that cannot be properly explained, inspire awe and are considered worthy of spiritual respect or devotion

The secular institutions that you mention don’t hinge on ideas that cannot be properly explained.

Somethings are upheld by a cult as "sacred" (set apart) that are not under the same perview and general skepticism of other beliefs.

Religious social facts are necessary not open to review because they are by nature inexplicable.

His definition seems a little vague because it potentially applies to an inexplicably special anything. An anthropologist would likely emphasize some kind of ritual aspect because it's slightly more quantitative.

Religious social facts are necessary not open to review because they are by nature inexplicable — praxis

The sacred is not open to the review to the extent that it is used as the basis for normative authority, and therefore not subject to rational criticism. I guess that equates with inexplicable.

It equates to ultimate authority. There’s no ultimate authority in secular institutions.

:up:

This gives some more depth to it:

https://durkheim.uchicago.edu/Summaries/forms.html

His definition of religion was this:

"a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, i.e., things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them."

There is a term that still carries some weight today, but is used in many different ways - ‘religiosity’. Durkheim believed all humans possessed ‘religiosity’ (which doesn’t exactly mean we’re all ‘religious’ in the common sense of the word, but that we have certain social propensities that shape our behavior - be these moral beliefs or cultural traditions/habits).

I’m not sure how you get that sacredness “literally” means that. That, of course, is not what it means, much less literally means. I assume that’s one sense of it that you got from a dictionary. — praxis

That's what the word means. Sacred, holy that word means set apart for a particular purpose. That's literally what it is. You can look it up.

It equates to ultimate authority. There’s no ultimate authority in secular institutions. — praxis

I dispute that. The ultimate authority is the Oligarchy, which runs secular institutions.

I made a hammer for the purpose of pounding a nail.

I set aside an olive so that come cocktail hour I can make a martini.

Etc...

The ultimate authority is the Oligarchy, which runs secular institutions. — h060tu

Do they provide answers to ultimate questions? Do we accept their rule on faith or do they need to justify their policies with reason?

I think the ultimate authority must affect us not at a proscriptive but at a prescriptive-motivational level.